You posted with approval an item recently about letting women serve on the front line, so long as standards are gender-neutral.

Do you really think that will remain the case?

I predict that if women go on the front line, one of two things will happen:

1) Standards (like how much you can carry, how fast you can run, etc.) will be split for different recruits, probably in a gender-neutral way, so that smaller/less-strong recruits can still pass muster.

2) All standards will come down.

Both options degrade the military.

I like your idea that so long as we demand certain standards, women can serve anywhere. There are very strong, big, capable women who could beat the crap out of any terrorist we encounter. But in practice, this seems like a step toward degrading standards.

While in rural Iraq, I had several soldiers fall into or take cover in an irrigation ditch -- they are everywere there. Some of the filthiest, nastiest water you will find. Even though we got them into showers later that day, they still had all sorts of nasty skin infections.

My point is not that women couldn't do this, my point is that combat is a dirty, nasty business and a policy made by bureaucrats won't change that.

In today's combat operations, one does not stay in a ditch very long--modern combat operations do not resemble WWI trench warfare. As I mentioned above, these discussions are farce conducted by people who have no idea what they are talking about.

well as an former Army officer I do know that we had to allow the female soldiers to go back from the front lines every few days for hygene reasons. While the male soldiers could often go weeks without showers.

I think a fair summary of the comment threads over the last two days would be "as long as the women who go meet the necessary standards without them being watered down I'm ok with it" with a minority appendage of "even though I think it's not a good step for society".

In something close to 1,000 comments on the subject infections were mentioned once in passing. But now we're going to focus on this one tiny aspect of readiness? Why? To facilitate leftist criticism that the right has a creepy fascination with ladyparts? Great. Let's delegitimize all the honest commentary under the creepy umbrella that doesn't describe anyone commenting. That's the leftist way.

Men have problems too - ever heard of trenchfoot? (aka: Bartonella virus, but that is another story)

If you read real memoirs of combat the one thing that is universal from the days of Rome through to today is that soldiers are dirty, wet, tired, hungry, sleep deprived, worn down, living with nagging injuries, infected, and carrying too much.

I'm sure women will have *more* problems because of the relative complexity of their genitals, but if you add that to the list I'm not sure the average misery index goes up much.

Why do you think it's old farts afraid of lady parts? What evidence is there that their words reflect fear of the female genitalia? Or, is this just some bugaboo women throw at old farts when they don't like what they say?

Does anyone stay in a ditch for 30 days anymore, like in WWI? Isn't that where the term "trench foot" originated? I think many man have biological problems after 30 days in a ditch. WWI was the first major war where more deaths occurred from battle than from disease and infection. Gingrich was wrong about men for sure.

Having been married twice, having 2 daughters and 3 sisters, I know women have UTIs infinitely more than man.

Until the twentieth century, disease deaths during war always far exceeded combat deaths. Even in the twentieth century, diseases like trench foot and malaria seriously crippled Armies' ability to wage war. Claiming that women are somehow more susceptible to disease is just silly

Can't say whether this is a serious risk or not but there are obvious problems with coed combat units foremost of which is that men and women both would be continually distracted by sexual thoughts, probably worse for the men. So social politics trumps unit effectiveness.

The military doesn't need or want this. The people at large don't need or want this. But Panetta had to give in to a coterie of shrieking harridans, who just can't STAND to hear anybody speak of "our fighting men." They have to horn in on everything men do -- est men have some role to themselves.

These cosmic harpies have to spit in the soup, steal men's thunder, and try to steal their role in society. These dogs-in-a-manger (bitches in a manger, to be precise) are just motivated by invidious envy and malice. And Panetta is a putrid little eunich/Benedict Arnold/rat bastard.

Women are at a disadvantage in the infantry because they'll be smaller, slower and weaker than the men they'll be fighting. Do we want our soldiers to be fighting with a disadvantage? This is the question we should be asking. Sanitary issues are at most a secondary concern.

I don't have lady parts, but I did spend time in Vietnam, were everybody had skin problems and particularly in the crotch area and anybody who doesn't think it would be much worse for females in the same assignment doesn't have a clue. The USMC grunt article from yesterday said that the march to Bagdad in 2003 was dry, but similiar.

as for showers, there weren't any. If you were lucky/unlucky to fight in a wet war, the solution is to strip, grab a bar of soap and stand nude except for your boots and shower in the rain.

As I said yesterday, re:Major Hasan, it won't be the rules, it won't be the majority who are capable and qualified, it will be the unwillingness or inability of the system to deal with those who aren't capable or qualified.

I suppose I'm too close to the day to day realities of the way the Army operates but there will be exceptions to and a lowering of, the standards, and the only ones who will have to deal with that won't be at the Pentagon or the Head Shed.

Is the timing of this announcement related to the bad press Obama has gotten for not hiring women for top jobs? I haven't heard that women are getting bizarre infections after 30 days in the Whitehouse.There must be some other reason.

Personal experience says this is an issue. I spent a couple of my younger years exploring archaeological sites (respectfully) in remote desert wilderness. My male partner and I would be out a couple weeks at a single spot with just the water we brought in, etc.

I wanted to be as lean on our resources as he could be, wearing the same clothes as long as possible, keeping our water for washing to a minimum, etc. And lemme repeat: this was the Desert.

Oy! Haha. The stink! Haha. Men are well-made for the great outdoors. Their outie is so efficiently sanitary (relatively), and they have not that extra wet aperture in the middle to muddle stuff up.

Our first such 2week outing got me straight, but it did mean the use of more of our precious resources, and my time and attention in order to be fit and perform.

As my friend edutcher notes (with respect to "jungle rot"): yes, exposure to harsh climatic conditions, in the absence of basic hygiene, leads to all sorts of unpleasant diseases. Basic hygiene is one of the most important things a commander can provide to his men--and you have to make time available which is often difficult. A good first sergeant and NCO chain is the best way to handle this. In viet nam, our steel pots (helmets) were our our basic sanitation.

I guess they cannot get the idea of men in foxholes out of their mind. Maybe it is a turn on. But I do not think we really dig trenches anymore and I would trust a woman to press a button as much as I would trust a man, maybe more. My wife has better reflexes than I do.

Edutcher: there have been many new conditions manifest in soldiers returning from the mideast--in particular a condition caused by biting flies. Have even seen small pox. The issue was important enough that when I was working in public health we got periodical updates from the military on these medical conditions that were unknown in the states--Many docs had never seen them and had to be informed.

In 2003, I went from May 8 to September without access to any kind of shower facilities.

You could jump in the river, or at my little outpost we had a garden hose we got running after a while.

Everyone crapped on open-air latrines in an orchard... basically half a barrel with a piece of plywood with a hole cut through it. A bit later we made "stalls" out of plywood, but wood was generally in short supply in Iraq for military and civilians alike.

A short distance away, at Combat Outpost in Ramadi (it wound up in the news quite a bit if you google it) they didn't even have a garden hose. That environment was extremely austere for months and months. We had a company plus there, including a big chunk of my company.

Fresh water was a very big concern. Everything had to be trucked in, twice a day... sometimes three times. I had one water trailer and they ran out regularly.

I know this because I was acting as the de facto support platoon leader for a light infantry headquarters company at the time. Small unit logistics was my life.

We could possibly have rotated a few women over to the garden hose every few days. They could hop on board one of my trucks when I dropped off the water trailers and come back on the next run.

A day later.

Risking their lives on the most dangerous stretch of road in country for a while, right through central Ramadi.

Women deserve to serve in combat because they grew up fighting on the school yard just like boys, sure.I'm bet all the homes across the country feel safer because there is a woman in the home to provide home protection.

Does modern warfare even use trench warfare? If so, does one really stay in them for long?

In trenches, not so much. But have you ever watched the documentary <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1559549/>Restopo</a>? Those men endured some harsh and primitive conditions for months on end while under very frequent attack. If you have not seen it, I highly recommend it.

In trenches, not so much. But have you ever watched the documentary Restropo? Those men endured some harsh and primitive conditions for months on end while under very frequent attack. If you have not seen it, I highly recommend it.

Inga...serious question, not baiting. The left always said the our armed forces was racist as there were too many African-Americans in it. That serving our country is bad, so we need to have more well off white folk in the branches.

Now the left says that serving in the armed forces is great, so we need more homosexuals and women in there.

Now infantry combat is not like being on a ship or aircraft (unless the ship or aircraft is on fire or sinking...)

But there differences between male and female. Sorry it's just fact.

PMS?Periods?Cramps?Pregnancy?

I mean these are facts.

So what does one do about these when you have to stay for months in a real war where you don't have huts or bases or showers or well think of Guadalcanal or Bastogne or the Chosin reservoir. Or go back to WW1 and the Somme!

Like I said before in another thread here, one day we are gonna fight someone who can FIGHT and fight hard. It won't be no Arab idiots who don't have a clue.

In retrospect I'm thinking having women in front line combat roles is a positive thing. The social change this engenders will be a positive for men. Just think, harrassment suits will go right out the window now. See below:

"Hey, women now are in frontline combat roles and are subjected to the horrors of war and the possibility of capture, torture or violent death. So don't go crying to HR or the EEOC because I told you that you have nice tits. Man up and grow a pair."

If I'm an 180 lb. soldier w/ 80-100 lbs. of gear and I have to be dragged out of peril, maybe I don't want to trust to "luckily" that some female corpsman will find the motivation and strength to pull me to safety.

Maybe I'd rather go with the odds that another 180 lb male soldier who has qualified based on higher strength standards is more likely to save my life.

Now that the military is deciding which officers to keep based on their willingness to fire upon US citizens, I say that the only place women are being considered for combat units is in the US. Female casualties would draw sympathy away from the "rebels" and would make harsh retaliation easier to sell in the Media. The Feds didn't buy billions of rounds of ammunition for nothing.

Does anyone remember a YouTube video floating around years back from a unit in Iraq where a bunch of guys were duct taping a female soldier to a post and she's laughing her ass off the guys are laughing and there was public OUTRAGE and the Pentagon said such behavior is not acceptable and they would be looking into the actions of the men.

Now we are putting the darlings on the front lines. You've come a long way baby.

The U.S. women's soccer team, arguably the best in the world, scrimmages against 16 year old boys for practice and they lose big. The physical differences are that great.

The world record for the mile run is 3.43.13 for men. Roger Bannister broke the 4 minute barrier over 50 years ago. No woman has broken that barrier yet. The woman's world record is 4.12.56. The American high school record is 3.55.3 set by Jim Ryun in 1963. Strength differences are similar. The world record in the shot put for men is 23.12 meters and for women is 22.63 meters. Doesn't seem like much of a difference until you consider that the men's shot put is 16 pounds and the women's is 8.8 pounds. The men's shot is nearly twice as heavy and the men still throw it further. (The U.S. high school record is greater than the women's world record in shot put also.) Physically in appearance and performance the differences in masculine and feminine are completely obvious to anyone who admits the truth.

Actually, no. That isn't a picture of anyone 'out on patrol' much less that woman.

Men and women are not the same, they are not equal in biology, they are not interchangeable units.

In a combat situation, the men will likely be killed because the women are there, can't keep up are a distraction.

The other alternative is that in combat situations, the women will be given the cushier, safer, less physically demanding roles, while the men are left to the grunt work, dangerous situations. Acting in the role of cannon fodder for the women. I see a lot of resentment between men and women happening. I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't some of the women being grudge raped or mysteriously being injured (fragged).

Look. I've been hunting and can (or used to when younger) keep up with the guys in most terrain conditions. I can (and have done so) shoot a deer. I can even field dress the deer (gag). What I CAN'T do is carry a 120 pound mule deer back to camp over rugged lava terrain. So.....When deer hunting, I had to do the 'buddy' system, which meant that my 'buddy' was disadvantaged an unable to solo hunt. Fortunately, my 'buddy' was also my husband and had a vested (sexual) interest in helping me.

We were NOT in a combat situation, so it didn't matter. In combat.....it WILL matter.

Drill, I also looked at Inga's link and saw the men dressed like they were going outside the wire. The two women were not "suited up", in fact, one seems to be holding a camera. The writer of the article might be making shit up.

The comparison to sports is dumb because sports are frivolous pastimes where split second decisions are of little consequence. Of course men's teams will be superior in strength, speed, endurance, etc. That tells us nothing.

There are women who are extraordinarily fit and can pass muster. Even so, the more important consideration is unit fitness, i.e., cohesion, discipline, morale, respect for authority. Will introducing women into combat (which will always be dominated by men) enhance unit fitness, degrade unit fitness, or have no effect at all?

Training can only do so much to overcome instinct. When bullets start flying, most people scatter and chaos ensues. If they stop to think, they die. So, to prevent these things, the military trains men to do certain things without thinking, to trust their training and their comrades. What happens to the effectiveness of that training when the overwhelming male instinct to protect a woman must also be overcome?

"Female Marines unload their rifles after a patrol with Afghan soldiers in Helmand province in June. The Marine Corps leadership has started an experiment to determine whether female Marine lieutenants have what it takes to become infantry officers and lead on the battlefield."

See, the problem is that you cannot predict whether or not your Infantry will be always on the move or get bogged down in a defensive position, sometimes for months at a time. Thinking WW1 trenchlines and "we don't do that anymore" is to confuse the issues. We still will have the need to go into long defense at times, whether its to establish a perimeter after taking ground or to defend against a sudden attack.

Ask the 82nd Airborne Division guys in WW2 that had the Nazis on the run, until they counter attacked near Bastogne, where the US Forces thought they'd beat back the Germans before winter set in. SO, they sent in the 82nd with no wonter gear and short on ammo. They then got stuck for 5 weeks, completely cut off, except for air.

That they were not in WW1 style trenches does not change the very harsh environmental factors of military defensive and offensive operations. They will have built trenchline conduits to get from position to position, so it really would be the WW2 equivalent of living in trenches.

We have been very lucky to have fought our last few wars using our 1990s-2010 technology against the 1950-1970s technology used by Armies of what are little more than 3rd world societies, trained and equipped by a broken down Communist Empire, whose scariness evaporated with each one shot tank kills of their vaunted top-line armor back in 1991.

Do not make the mistake of always fighting the last wars. You have to expect anything, including getting your ass thumped and the possiblity that you may have to occupy nasty terrain for months and years.

If they keep the standards truly equal I'm ok with women in combat if its enforced by equal standards.

But what many fear will happen is that, rather than keep the standards high, they will relax them so that marginal women candidates "succeed" and can be paraded for manufactured positive PR of the "lookit us, we're so inclusive!" preening. The men will keep their mouths shut, because orders are orders.

This is what happened with women going from the Auxiliaries to regular Enlisted and Commissionned ranks. Too many women failed out in the Army because of the PT test, so they made a 2 tiered set with lower requirements for women in order to graduate more and please the politicians.

My gut says they will lower the standards to please the pols that control the flow of money.

I mentioned before that men have an instinctual reaction to protect women particularly in violent or dangerous situations. This is why you will routinely see a man stop to help a women with a flat but never stop to help another guy. It's just how we are wired. In my opinion, I think this now puts men in the position of risking mission objectives because of the impulse to protect the females in the unit.

Hell I could be wrong cause I'm a bit old fashioned, holding doors open for ladies,.pulling out their chair, all that stupid stuff I guess. It just seems like we are on a path of feminizing men and 'masculinizing' women.

Lem said... On the other hand, I could see Inga serving as a Virtual Annoyance Officer...

Maybe our military will eventually evolve to include political officers whose duties can include ensuring soldiers don't think less of low performers - if they're women, gay, or minorities. If they're white male heteros they can apply carefully calibrated social pressure to improve performance.

Inga said... Women in combat roles consists of MORE THAN JUST INFANTRY.

Inga, you are arguing past folks, either by intent or ignorance. In short, there are three definitions in play.

1. In combat, e.g. somewhere in the war zone. Lawyers are in combat as they drive down a road in Iraq and by definition, since that get 'combat pay' they are in combat. Lots of 'women in combat' 10% of the force or so.

2. in a combat unit. meaning assigned, or attached to a unit designated a "combat arms" unit. e.g. Infantry, Armor, Field Artillery, Cavalry, SOF, and some add combat engineers. Note the word assigned versus attached. Men are assigned to the units, up till now, support elements (men and women) were 'attached' to for specific missions over limited periods. Navy Corpsmen are attached. Maintenance teams may be attached. Both now have women, doing the same MOS jobs that some men in the combat unit have. They reinforce, for a period. supporting attached elements tend to be in the rear of the unit. Today none assigned, some attached, soon to change

At the simpliest level, what the Panetta rule does is allow women mechanics, who till now, could only be attached to an infantry unit, can now be assigned to a unit. indefinitely.

3. , However, Panetta's rule also makes every 'combat arms' position in the combat unit , also open to women, unless and until, the Army requests and a waiver is approved. This is the area of huge contention. We macho experts (e.g. combat vets), can concede women mechs in a tank battalion, but frankly, doing the job is back-breaking and tank bn mechs must also double as tank crew. As a Tank unit commander, short staffed, I crewed more than one tank with a gunner who was a turret / fire control mech in his day job.

We are certain, that nearly all women are not capable of doing the jobs required of an infantryman for a sustained period, and know that attempting to make that work will get more than the women killed...

Oh that's right, Private Pyle, don't make any fucking effort to get to the top of the fucking obstacle. If God would have wanted you up there he would have miracled your ass up there by now, wouldn't he?

Things will definitely have to change now. For instance, M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles do not come standard with coin-operated maxipad dispensers. This will probably have to be a factory upgrade - I'm not sure depot level maintenance can handle installation. How will this compare to the $500 toilet seat? Discuss.

IMHO, this is a great step forward - we now need to bring womyn's equality to the selective service, making registration a condition of federal student aid.

Jason, rucks or no rucks, they are equally out in the line of fire, why does this not matter to you?

Are you truly this stupid?

If you are out in the line of fire and one of you is packing a hundred pounds on HIS back and the other person is not because SHE is not physically strong enough to keep up.....do you REALLY consider this equality?

Inga: I've been reading you for a while now. My impression -- what I have tentatively "figured out" -- is that you can't make a coherent argument for your position, so you substitute with emotional noise, counter-attacks, and bare links.

If you can't make your point yourself, it's not up to me or anyone else to "figure it out."

To be fair, tho, our women were right there outside Karbala in 2003. We had bath by water bottle for about 30 days before the SeeBees built showers. At first everybody got one shower a week. We were an MP Company attached to the 3/7 Marine Infantry BN of the 1st MEF. I don't recall any ladyparts causing undue hardship or not being able to handle duties in camp or outside the wire.

rucks or no rucks, they are equally out in the line of fire, why does this not matter to you?

Actually Inga, it does matter, to me. I dont want the women in the line of fire, I want them safe and secure. Like I said yesterday, I don't want to see men coming home in bags and I sure as hell don't want to see women. Like I said above, I'm somewhat old fashioned, I am protective of women. I do believe in woman and children first.

But now it seems like its only children first and the women can go sink with the men in the spirit of equality. I'm not expecting to change your mind but I think you should also consider other reasons why some people think this is a bad idea.

It's one thing to be caught in a combat situation, its another thing to up the ante and go looking for it.

Of course she's missing the point on purpose. If she doesn't she can't portray everyone's comments as a general attack on already women serving. And if we're not attacking women serving how can she set herself up as the heroic martyr defending those serving our country against sexist neanderthals?

What happens to the effectiveness of that training when the overwhelming male instinct to protect a woman must also be overcome?

When the mortars were falling I wasn't thinking about protecting the girls. I was thinking through getting to cover and getting ready for attack/counterattack.

The girls were doing that too, because thats what they are trained to do. They were combat MPs, with a little salt in their hat by that point.

When you are thinking about how your buttons are getting in the way of being lower to the ground, the last thing on your mind is chivalry.

That argument, that "big strong man will push little lady behind him in time of danger and disregard his mission and training" is so Hollywood it is laughable. It is not supported by my experience.

I didn't say anything about "mortars falling" specifically. I also didn't ask about you specifically. Perhaps you lack certain instincts of a normal man, or somehow managed to suppress them.

The protective instinct is but one consideration that seems to compromise effectiveness. Another is the distracting "drama" that typically ensues when the sexes are integrated in a workplace. Not just romance, but also women hating other women, especially when they're around other men. In my experience, since you and I are both being anecdotal, is that women have trouble working with other women, and no amount of training or leadership can overcome that.

Home OpinionWomen fight for respect in the military, earn leadership skillsStoryCommentsPrintCreate a hardcopy of this page

"Life in the Navy was an experience that changed my life. When I look back on my career as a Navy Corpsman, I can recall countless friendships and opportunities to refine leadership skills. Navy Corpsman are the United States Navy’s medical personnel, who are in charge of ensuring every service member is healthy and medically fit for combat deployment.A corpsman may serve as either a Navy Corpsman stationed with Navy commands, or Fleet Marine Force (FMF) Corpsman attached to Marine units. A Corpsman can be found in a military clinic, battle-ready ship or alongside our brave Marines in the field.Fortunately, I was stationed with the Marine Corps Air Wing as an FMF Corpsman and had the opportunity to fight for my country in Operation Iraqi Freedom.As an FMF Corpsman, I was first trained in basic medical care and then sent to a specialty school which trained me in Tactical Combat Casualty Care, emergency medical skills and basic Marine Corps training.The Navy was just like a regular job. It had a hierarchical rank system, rules, institutional values, work uniform and the opportunity to progress up the ranks. I couldn’t complain. I was given housing and food allowances, free medical and dental, and a base pay, which afforded me a comfortable living.Being a female corpsman in a Marine unit wasn’t easy though. Trying to make a stand and earn respect as a woman in a male-dominated institution proved to be a difficult task. The usual gender distribution in the average workspace is approximately one woman to every 50 men. In mine, I was the only woman in a platoon of 45 Marines.As a corpsman, I had to be ready to respond to anything, and I couldn’t afford to lean on my gender as a crutch.If I wanted to be in this line of work, I had to toughen up and be prepared. A female combat corpsman would have to be able to haul an injured Marine in full gear out of a dangerous situation. To complete those tasks, I had to ensure that my physical conditioning was high and intense.The average male weighs 180 pounds. Now add on approximately 80 to 100 pounds of their gear and then 80 to 100 pounds of your own gear, and you have a near impossible task ahead of you.Luckily, biologically, our bodies find the motivation and strength to pull our buddies out of harm’s way. I was fortunate enough, though, when I was deployed to Iraq with Marine Wing Support Squadron 273’s Incident Response Platoon not to have to respond to any combat casualties.I loved every minute of being a Fleet Marine Force Corpsman! Now that I am out of the military and attending the University, all the skills and experiences I have acquired have helped me greatly in many ways.Elizabeth Ambros is a sophomore in AHS."

Inga said... Thank GOD a real live Marine is telling the truth of the matter here.

SGT Ted is talking about an MP unit in combat, not Infantry in combat. As i noted the other day, MPs are a combat support element, that typically engage the enemy for short periods, either mounted or within feet of their vehicles. Then they return to base for the night.

That is not the same as wearing a 100 pound ruck, headed dismounted to the top of a mountain and stay there for 30 days.

That is not to say that SGT Ted isn't a warrior, but in that job, he's not an infantryman...

Drill SGT,Women may be exempted from the Infantry, after all is said and done, all the yelling about women in the Infantry may be for nothing. As I said all along here and in the other threads, women in combat consists of MORE than women in Infantry!

PS I remember when Renee Richards wanted to play pro tennis and my sister, good little feminist that she was, went wild saying how unfair it was because he/she still had the musculo-skeletal structure of a man.

For every woman who is exempted from the military and put into a less strenuous and less DANGEROUS role, that means one MORE man who is going to be channeled into the 'cannon fodder' front line position and one less MAN who might have been able to fill the position that the women are taking.

This results in a two tiered military. One: men in the grunt work, dangerous positions. The other: women in the less dangerous, less strenuous positions. All in the name of the false God of diversity. Just so feminists can feel like they are equal.....when they are not and can never be in these types of situations.

It would be the same things as having a two tiered military where Blacks are put on the front lines and the White guys get the support roles. It might be diverse in the total make up of Blacks to Whites. Is this FAIR? Is this going to create an efficient military. Can anyone see some problems with this scenario?

DBQ, your comment makes absolutely no sense. Women are exempted from the Infantry NOW. That's the way these guys want to keep it. And if the females can not hack the physicality of the Infantry, they don't belong in it.

As Ive said and commenters here keep ignoring, is that combat roles for women consist of MORE than the INFANTRY.

Combat MPs are not infantry. While we do some infantry missions, we are not infantry and we don't have the same load-out or manning. The closest we come to operating like infantry is MOUT. Thats Military Operations, Urban Terrain.

We are more like Dragoons, using mounts to get to contact then dismounting to fight, but we also fight mounted if need be. And that is usually in response to threats in the rear area. Even our MOUT mission presumes that the main front has bypassed a town or city that is not important enough for the infantry to take, but can be reduced using MPs.

Gentlemen, as I said earlier upthread, perhaps we should embrace this change since after all, some good natured guy banter and ass grabbing should not be a big deal anymore now that the ladies are one of the guys. ;-)

I'm kidding of course. Naturally after a tour of combat, I'm sure the ladies will still want you to hold the door held open and pick up the tab.

I called my guys, both male and female "the boys" so it is meant in that spirit; one of the boys. Quit taking offense at the female version of 'boys". Men don't care about the word "boys" when they are comrades. The girls should get with it.

And I'm not knocking chivalry in the civilian world. What I am saying is that it doesn't get in the way of the mission, not as described as an "overriding instinct". In my mind, inattention to hygiene reducing combat effectiveness is the greater issue.

My comment makes perfect sense to those who understand math, statistical distribution as well as have some logical thinking.

If you increase the number of XX (women) in the universe (in the mathematical sense set theory and the foundations of mathematics, a universe is a class that contains (as elements) all the entities one wishes to consider in a given situation.) to the proportion of XY. AND you assume that there is a corresponding sub universe of jobs or occupations. AND you assume/declare that the XX portion of the universe is going to be prohibited from occupying a portion of those jobs---->INFANTRY. Then you have to conclude that the XY portion of the universe is going to be over represented in the prohibited job class.

I've tried to explain it in several ways. I'm quite sure that this is all going to go wooooosh....over your head.

Palladian, you ignorant slut. I personally think women in combat is asinine, but there are hormones women can take to stop all periods indefinitely. Perhaps you should direct your concern at soldiers keeping their out-in-the-field-dirty pee-pees out of warm, moist places?